Pee Cueiam.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Perskie.
It is not contended that there is no sufficient basis in the evidence for the finding that the enucleation of the employee’s eye was due to the industrial accident; and we have not considered that question. For affirmance — The Chancellor, Case, Bodine, Donges, Fetter, Poetes, Colte, Deae, Wells, WolfsKetl, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.